Subject: [dnsext] Report from the chairs for IETF 80

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:51:05 -0400

Dear colleagues,                                                                
                                                                                
This is the DNSEXT Working Group status report from the chairs.  As we
did for previous meetings, we are undertaking this report on the
mailing list rather than at the meeting.  Items not addressed in this
report but that you think need discussing should be part of the DNSEXT
meeting at IETF 80, or should be raised here on the list.
                                                                                
Please be aware that, if there are issues you want to have addressed            
at the meeting and you feel they're not being addressed in this mail,           
you should not hesitate to raise them.                                          
                                                                                
Reminder: contributions to the WG are covered by the "Note Well"
statement, which can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html.

The current WG chairs can always be reached at
<[email-masked]>.  The ADs for the WG can be reached at
<[email-masked]>.

1.  DRAFTS PUBLISHED

    Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC, RFC
    6014. 

2.  DRAFTS IN OR PAST WG LAST CALL

    The chairs regret that we have not done a very good job -- one
    could say, in fact, that we've done a rather bad job -- at dealing
    with drafts since IETF 79.  More on this below.

    a.  RFC-Editor's queue

    draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis.  This draft is, you may recall, the
    emergency change we thought we could get published "quickly" as a
    result of the difficulties with mailing list operation
    contemporary with IETF 79.  It has not yet been published.

    b.  IESG processing

        draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis  
        
            The editor and the shepherd have some work to do on
            language before this is sent along.  The status is
            actually false: this was sent back to the WG.  This status
            is unchanged since IETF 79.

3.  ACTIVE DRAFTS

    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes

        - This draft went through a last call and was, as far as the
          shepherd (Andrew) understands matters, successful.  He has
          not prepared his report, however.  Andrew apologized to the
          WG for his delinquency.

    draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname

        - Contemporary with IETF 79, the chairs committed to running a
          last call on this draft.  They failed to do so.

    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates

        - A couple outstanding issues were rectified, and the editors
          have received instructions on how to update the text to
          reflect the consensus about CD bit handling.  We expect a
          new issue soon.

          There is a new issue that has come up recently, having to do
          with how many RRSIGs should be sent with the SOA record in
          both AXFR and IXFR.  Please see the discussion on the list. 

    draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0

        - There was little discussion in response to recent postings.
          Does this indicate lack of interest?

    draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa

        - This draft needs registry-fixes to go on, so we have been
          neglecting it.   The editor has sent quite justifiable
          notices of annoyance to the chairs.

    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal

        - This draft is being shepherded by Patrik Fältström.  It has
          not engendered much discussion since the -00 was uploaded.
          Does that mean people think it is ready?

    draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing-requirements

        - Major subject of IETF 80 meeting.

4.  EXPIRED DRAFTS

    draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00

        - Major subject of IETF 80 meeting.  This draft is not
          strictly a WG document, but we were planning to move
          directly to WGLC except that when we started to, several
          objections were raised.

5.  Other WG work and issues

    a.  Expert reviews

        We have failed, quite spectacularly, in our duties to complete
        expert reviews for two RRTYPE requests.  The responsibility
        for this lies with the chair who is supposed to be managing
        that process (Andrew).  This is not the first time, however,
        that we have had trouble meeting our responsibilities in this
        area.  

        At the same time, the process of publishing
        draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis has exposed widespread and rather
        serious confusion about the procedures.  Some of these are due
        to differences between the documents and the actual
        operation.  

        If you have suggestions about how things can be improved,
        please speak to (or send mail to) the chairs.  We will need to
        undertake yet another revision of draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis in
        order to address IANA concerns, so we might as well try to
        nail this.

    b.  Mailing list move

        The mailing list moved to the IETF infrastructure.  As far as
        we can tell, this was successful.  If you have evidence
        otherwise, please bring it to our attention.

    c.  Chair performance

        The chairs have not adequately discharged their
        responsibilities in respect of WG operation -- especially in
        respect of review and managing WG document workflow.  Some
        have complained also that we have allowed discussion of
        certain topics to ramble and to return repeatedly to
        already-considered (and rejected) topics.  

        The chairs must admit that part of the reason for this
        inadequate attention is that each chair does a significant
        amount of work for the same (rather small) company.  The IETF
        is a volunteer activity, and for any WG, there is a risk to
        the WG if both chairs get busy at the same time.  In the
        present case, of course, there may be a greater than normal
        chance that both chairs get busy at the same time.  While this
        problem might solve itself, we are unsure whether the WG as a
        whole wants us to take action to head of this increased risk.
        Your thoughts are solicited.  While we are loathe to increase
        the work on our AD, if you feel uncomfortable sending your
        views to the chairs and believe your views should be heard,
        you ought to make your observations to our AD.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Matthijs Mekking <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:12:23 +0200

Hi,

>           both AXFR and IXFR.  Please see the discussion on the list. 

I think it would also be good if we could come to a consensus on
clarifying how the resolver should interpret section 2.2 (RFC 4035) (see
the discussion on 'Clarifying the mandatory algorithm rules').

Best regards,

Matthijs

---

From: "Rose, Scott W." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:04:10 -0400

>          last call on this draft.  They failed to do so.

There was still this open issue:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg10339.html

Not a lot of discussion, still accepting input if there are any dissenting views.

>          Does that mean people think it is ready?

There were some comments.  Will post -01 version of the draft before expiration (~2 weeks).

Scott

===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
[email-masked]
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================